Well you do know that those signs were actually put up… right? One in Malibu and one on I-15.
Really? Please enlighten— what obligates me to admit that a prank sign with a partisan “joke” represents “the truth”?
That Democrats need votes from criminals and non citizens? I do not so admit.
Even still, that isn’t the party that nominated a bible thumping child molester for Federal office from Alabama.
It says
Which means they can challenge the validity - although adding that line seems to do nothing but add confusion.
I’d love to hear your reasoning. I’m thinking that this CA law is a replica of the AZ law that got overturned, except in the reverse. If the law actively prohibits people from volunteering to assist federal immigration enforcement officers, I’d say that has a high burden to overcome to be considered kosher.
I’m not sure why you would think so. Governments have fairly broad authority to protect individuals’ privacy, even with regard to records held by third parties. HIPAA (along with dozens of similar state laws) prohibits physicians from voluntarily sharing patients’ medical information without patient authorization, but challenges on the grounds that it’s an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of medical providers have all failed. There is no individual constitutional right to medical privacy, so this is not a matter of competing constitutional rights.
The law doesn’t prevent people from volunteering to assist federal immigration officers. It prevents them from doing so by sharing personnel files. They’re free to call and say, “I think I have an undocumented worker at my business,” or whatever.
I’m not questioning that they were put up, I’m questioning the usage of a such a dubious source (which, yes - provided actual factual info in this particular instance) that has, in turn, biased Urban’s weak response.
And really, you had to go with Fox, yourself?
Yeah my response could’ve been worded better to mention exactly what you’re pointing out.
It does more than that. It prohibits employers from voluntarily allowing ICE to enter non-public areas of the business:
So a uniformed ICE officer enters a business and asks if they have permission to come into the back office to take a look around, have a conversation, etc. If the employer agrees, that’s a civil violation under this law.
Ah. You didn’t quote that part before, but I agree it’s problematic.
It’s a very interesting question whether a state can prohibit granting consent to federal officials for searches and arrests on their property.
I don’t think it is quite the reverse of the Arizona case. In that case, there were statutes you could point to in which Congress explained how locals are permitted to engage in immigration enforcement, and the argument for conflict preemption was pretty good. I don’t think you have the same statutory preemption argument here, and there’s at least arguably less of a conflict with the enforcement of federal policy since they can get a subpoena or search warrant when necessary.
On the other hand, as a reality, ICE very often operates without getting judicial authority because the basis for their suspicion is illegal racial profiling. So refusing consent probably would actually harm ICE operations. But is that really a pre-emption problem?
I think the argument to the contrary is pretty thin. It’s one thing to say “we don’t participate in immigration investigations,” and another to say “and nobody within our jurisdiction can either.”